On the basis of corpus data and in consonance with cognitively-oriented constructionist approaches to language, mainly the work by Goldberg (1995, 2006) and the developments in Ruiz de Mendoza and Mairal (2008, 2011), we offer a fine-grained analysis of some specific instantiations of the resultative pattern based on the prepositional phrase to death. The analysis starts off from the classification of verb classes made by Levin (1993). The verbs in some of these classes are readily available for fusion into the resultative configuration. Others call for reconstrual in terms of high-level metaphor and/or metonymy before they can conform to the requirements of the pattern mentioned above. Thus, we focus on the way in which the resultative pattern overwrites the properties of some lexical groups of verbs through the licensing activity of such cognitive mechanisms as high-level metaphor and metonymy. Additionally, the prepositional phrase to death is shown to perform two key communicative functions from among those put forward by Boas (2003): placing emphasis on an end point or rendering a vague point clear. Finally, the paper examines the hyperbolic load of the PP to death in some contexts where this PP is seen as converting an argument-structure construction into an implicational one conveying the speaker’s (usually negative) reaction to a given state of affairs.
Barcelona, A. (2000). On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 31–58). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bergh, G., & Zanchetta, E. (2008). Web linguistics. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus linguistics: An international handbook (pp. 309–327). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Boas, H.C. (2003). A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Boas, H.C. (2011). Coercion and leaking argument structures in Construction Grammar. Linguistics, 49(6), 1271–1303.
Broccias, C. (2001). The need for the resultative network. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 261, 41–52.
Broccias, C. (2003). The English change network: Forcing changes into schemas. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Claridge, C. (2011). Hyperbole in English: A corpus-based study of exaggeration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Faber, P., & Mairal, R. (1999). Constructing a lexicon of English verbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, A., & Jackendoff, R. (2004). The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80(3), 532–568.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Part 2. Journal of Linguistics, 31, 199–243.
Herrero, J. (2009). Understanding tropes: At the crossroads between pragmatics and cognition. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C.J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75(1), 1–33.
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–77.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
Levin, B. (2006). English object alternations: A unified account. Unpublished manuscript. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Levin, B., & Rappaport, M. (1990). Wiping the slate clean: A lexical-semantic exploration. Cognition, 411, 123–155.
Levin, B., & Rappaport, M. (2006). Constraints on the complexity of verb meaning and VP structure. In H.M. Gaertner, R. Eckardt, R. Musan, & B. Stiebels (Eds.), Between 40 and 60 puzzles for Krifka. Berlin: ZAS. Retrieved May 25, 2008, from [URL].
Luzondo, A. (2011). Construcciones resultativas del inglés en el Modelo Léxico Construccional: Implicaciones para la modelación de una base de conocimiento léxico conceptual. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of La Rioja.
Michaelis, L. (2003). Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning. In H. Cuykens, R. Dirven, & J.R. Taylor. (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp. 93–122). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. (2000). The effect for cause metonymy in English grammar. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 215–232). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Peña, M.S. (2009). Constraints on subsumption in the caused-motion construction. Language Sciences, 31(6), 740–765.
Peña, M.S. (2010). Expresiones resultativas con la frase preposicional to death: Un análisis desde el punto de vista del Modelo Léxico Construccional. In J.L. Cifuentes, A. Gómez, A. Lilio, J. Mateo, & E. Yus (Eds.), Los caminos de la lengua: Estudios en homenaje a Enrique Alcaraz Varó (pp. 797–811). Alicante: Publicaciones de la Universidad de Alicante.
Peña, M.S. (2016). Cognitive mechanisms underlying fake reflexive resultatives. Australian Journal of Linguistics.
Peña, M.S., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. (forthcoming). Construing and constructing hyperbole. In A. Athanasiadou (Ed.), Studies in figurative language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Rappaport, M., & Levin, B. (2010). Reflections on manner/result complementarity. In E. Doron, M. Rappaport Hovav, & I. Sichel (Eds.), Syntax, lexical semantics, and event structure (pp. 21–38). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Renouf, A. (2003). WebCorp: Providing a renewable data source for corpus linguists. In S. Granger & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Extending the scope of corpus-based research (pp. 39–58). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Luzondo, A. (2016). Figurative and non-figurative motion in the expression of result in English. Language and Cognition, 8(1), 32–58.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Mairal, R. (2008). Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica, 42(2), 355–400.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Mairal, R. (2011). Constraints on syntactic alternation: Lexical-constructional subsumption in the lexical-constructional model. In P. Guerrero (Ed.), Morphosyntactic alternations in English: Functional and cognitive perspectives (pp. 62–82). London: Equinox.
Cited by (4)
Cited by four other publications
Yuan, Guorong & Yi Sun
2023. A bibliometric study of metaphor research and its implications (2010–2020). Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 41:3 ► pp. 227 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 december 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.